Wikipedia:Proposed good articles
Good articles are articles that many people find to be better than other articles. Good articles have criteria/requirements that the article needs to have. Read Wikipedia:Requirements for good articles for information about the criteria.
This page is to talk about articles to see if they meet Good Article criteria. When an article is posted here, it should have the {{pgood}} tag put on it. This will put the article in Category:Proposed good articles.
Articles which are accepted by the community as good articles will have their {{pgood}} tag replaced with {{good}}. They are also shown on Wikipedia:Good articles and are put in Category:Good articles. Articles which are not accepted by the community as good articles have their {{good}} tag removed.
Articles that are above the good article criteria can be nominated to be a "very good article" at Wikipedia:Proposed very good articles.
This tool can be used to find the size of an article.
If you choose to participate in the discussion process for promoting articles, it is very important that you know and understand the criteria for good articles. Discussing an article is a promise to the community that you have read the criteria and the article in question. You should prepare to completely explain the reasons for your comments. This process should not be taken lightly. If there is concern that a user is not taking the process seriously and/or is commenting without reason, they may have their privilege to participate taken away.
Contents
Archives[change source]
Proposals for good articles[change source]
To propose an article for Good article status, just add it to the top of the list using the code below. You may have one nomination open at a time only. Proposals run for three weeks. After this time the article will be either promoted or not promoted depending on the consensus reached in the discussion.
This is not a vote, so please do not use comments such as "Support" or "Oppose" etc.
=== Article name ===
:{{la|article name}}
State why the article should be a GA. ~~~~
Fred Rogers[change source]
The article has been a project of mine over the years. Mr. Rogers through inspired and brought joy to many children across generations and when the film Won't You Be My Neighbor? was released, it unleashed a renewed appreciation, mourning, respect and love for Rogers. The article has been expanded, well sourced, simplified, and no red-links at all. Rogers is not only a hero of mine, but a hero to many and I believe it is a tribute for Rogers' article to gain a GA status for other readers to read his rich work and legacy. Any comments or concerns will be addressed and I will fix them as I did when Reagan, Sanders and Corbyn were nominated. Thank you. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 02:26, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
- Charming and well-written article about a genuinely good person. I was pleased to read about this man, and would thank our colleague for writing it and suggesting it for GA. I fully support its promotion! Macdonald-ross (talk) 12:40, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
- It's close, but it could still use a little simplifying: not so much in vocabulary, but for sentence length and structure. For example, the second paragraph in the "Death" section is all one sentence. It's OK for a paragraph to have only one sentence, but that sentence should be broken up. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:12, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Auntof6:: I shortened sentences. Take a look! --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:27, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
- Definitely close. Still, look at paragraph 3 of "Early Career": I'd (almost) never create a compound sentence using a semicolon to separate clauses on this wiki. (That's relatively advanced structure.) And look at paragraph 2 of "Mister Rogers' Neighborhood": You have a sentence containing a list of verbal phrases, which then concludes with a subordinate clause. I think you could do either one of those things in one sentence here, but doing both might be too much. But keep up the good work! StevenJ81 (talk) 17:31, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
- @StevenJ81:: Fixed those two! Take a look! --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:03, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Oxalaia[change source]
I've been working to get this page to good article status and I believe it now fits the criteria, overall the Simple English Wikipedia needs a lot of work on its dinosaur-related articles and I'd like to help out with that, this should be a good step in that direction. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ (Contribs) 18:34, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
There are complex sentences that need to be divided. --- I Split them up, how do they look now? ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ (Contribs) 21:07, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
- You divided paragraphs, not sentences. The issue is complex sentences. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:53, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
- Ah, I looked up other good articles on this wiki and I see what you mean. Made the changes. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ (Contribs) 23:46, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
- Anything else left to be fixed? ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ (Contribs) 22:14, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
- Ah, I looked up other good articles on this wiki and I see what you mean. Made the changes. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ (Contribs) 23:46, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
- You divided paragraphs, not sentences. The issue is complex sentences. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:53, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
- I Split them up, how do they look now? ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ (Contribs) 21:07, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
- I realise this is not specifically mentioned in the Good article criteria, but there are a lot of words in that text which even I struggle with, as a speaker of English as a second language. I don't believe that the text would be suitable as a GA if people learning the language would struggle to read it. DaneGeld (talk) 22:09, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not sure the article could be any simpler, but since I'm a native english speaker I might be a bit biased. Can you give me some examples of these words? ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ (Contribs) 22:38, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
- @DaneGeld: That would be covered by requirement #8: no tags on the page, and no tags needed. However, be aware that complex words are allowed if they are linked to articles (because presumably those articles explain the topic in simple language). --Auntof6 (talk) 22:53, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
- I understand what you're saying @Auntof6:, but I'm talking about the ability of another non-English speaker or learner to read the text. Clicking the link is fine, but when you have a lot of links, that can very quickly slow down your experience. What I'm proposing is split links. @PaleoGeekSquared: - You have words like "carnivorous", which you could link as [[carnivorous|meat-eating]] and "spinosaurid", which you could link as [[spinosaurid|crocodile-like dinosaur]] (I am aware you have that text already). You are perfectly fine to link to the articles you already have, but you could use simpler terms to manage those links, as I've shown.
- The article is brilliant, but it's the complexity of reading the words I'm concerned about, not understanding them. I hope you understand my concern :) DaneGeld (talk) 23:01, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
- I can understand your concerns about words like "carnivorous". However, you see terms like tyrannosaurid, allosaurid, dromaeosaur, spinosaurid, etc. on several dinosaur articles on this wiki, I think they should stay for the same reason User:Auntof6 mentions above. People read wikipedia for information, and we can't expect them to know all of it right away just by reading one article, if someone is curious on what a spinosaurid is, they should go to the respective article to find out, but I don't think it should be removed from the lead section of an article as it's a bit of a crucial element. A short explanation is given in the article for that anyways: "A crocodile-like dinosaur with teeth designed to grab and hold slippery fish". ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ (Contribs) 23:16, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
┌─────────────────────────────────┘
There are some claims that I feel should be clarified; I have tagged them for now, and will take a closer look later this weekend. Chenzw Talk 03:52, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
- Whoops, looks like I forgot some references from the original article on en.wikipedia, thanks for bringing that to our attention. They should be there now, as well as some additional ones from the Spinosauridae page. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ (Contribs) 05:02, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
@Auntof6 @Chenzw (Pinging some of the reviewers for the article). I'm here again to mention that the english wikipedia version of Oxalaia (see here[1]) has been through many major expansions and fixes as well as a Good Article review. Therefore the simple english article is now rather incomplete in comparison, this review will have to be put on hold until I or someone else can expand it and add the appropriate content. PaleoGeekSquared (talk) 19:18, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
I don't think it is near being a good article. If this is a good article, then we have at least 5,000 better. Separate from that, it seems worth remembering that the genus rests on just a couple of bony fragments, meaning that there is a limit to what can be said. As fossils, Baryonyx and Spinosaurus provide more and better-based information. Macdonald-ross (talk) 13:18, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
- I've finally come back to try and finish up on this. The equivalent article at en.wikipedia is now featured and I have all the relevant information needed to expand it here.[2] I tried my best to exclude overly detailed content by comparing with other GAs here, but it should probably be given a look at from people more acquainted than me to writing simple articles. (Pinging reviewers @Macdonald-ross:, @Chenzw:, @DaneGeld: and @Auntof6:) ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 04:41, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
Hugo Lloris[change source]
I think this is a page that absolutely deserve to be a good article, is well-written, there are many fonts, external links, images and templates. Please control the page and improve it more. Thanks! --FlameStorm199 (talk) 13:09, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Pretty good article so far, but the article needs simplification, and clarification of self-contradictory sentences. Hiàn (talk) 02:49, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
- A lot of unchanged wording from En wiki; many sentences too long and complicated (tho' also many simplified). It's not a bad page, but not one we should promote. Macdonald-ross (talk) 17:45, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
Angaturama[change source]
This page deserves to be a good article because it is long, well written, has lots of sources and images and just deserves to be a good article. --Centrosurus (talk) 12:29 October 02, 2018 (UTC)
- The article was recently changed from redirecting to Irritator to being a complex article with a lot of unsimplified text copied from en:Irritator. In my opinion, the article should be changed back to a redirect. --Auntof6 (talk) 12:05, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
- I agree, and have changed it back to redirect. It was the very reverse of what we regard as a good page. Macdonald-ross (talk) 14:16, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
